Comments

The form factor is already a disaster. If you take that(tube-like) shape, you'll want to be able to rotate the front lens like a drift 720HD etc. Let's say I want attached to the side of my helmet. How exactly is that going to be ergonomically-flat against my helmet for minimal wind noise etc.?

wildbild: The Lytro is not a consumer product.It is still this great technology that hasn't found it's purpose, yet.

Of course it's a consumer product. The general public are the only ones gullible-enough to buy something on hype alone. For industrial purposes, there's great glass design and F32....and I can't think of a reason you'd need a blur-filter there if you need-it captured sharply for data acquisition.

I mean let's get real now...you're telling me that a technology with NO purpose is EXCITING!!!!!...c'mon man, tell me how many did you guys sell?...1000 tops?...with 800 returns and the rest either lost or floating around on ebay for $100?

@Ruy Penalva: I don't agree, the audio seems "very" authentic and if you've ever been on stage, that's what it sounds like back there. Especially when walking around the drum kit, there's no way to cheat that. Looks authentic. ;) Don't forget, high MP's will give you access to great oversampling image stabilization control/algorithms.

PatRM2: I think this is fascinating and no doubt will go somewhere. My guess it will find its way to the NYPD surveillance people the next time there is a demonstration in NY. Will it make me want to buy one...no, probably not. When you start out with a Leica C and your heros are Henri Cartier-Bresson, Edward Weston, Steichen, it is hard to abandon substance for a lipstick tube. But, I think for many newbies taking pictures, and I say taking pictures, not photography, it will be wonderful. I'll stick with my Nikons and Canons.

HowaboutRAW writes: "You gain being able to fix focus after the fact, blur too."

...because we really need your "cheesey - after the fact Gaussian blur" that uses a marquee'd area in the photo that's arbitrarily defined by your rudimentary contrast-sensing algorithm. Please, spare me now. I simply don't think photographers will fall for this feature that only YOU so highly covet. They'll want REAL optical DOF like the type shown in this picture from Canon's new 5D mkIII. Do your people simply not understand this simple fact of real optical blur?

robogobo: I said it from the beginning: this is at best a solution in search of a problem, and at worst a complex gimmick. No matter what research is pointed my way, I still don't see what's so revolutionary about the tech. I've been told I need a phd to understand it. Good luck selling that. In the end it still looks like a bunch of simultaneous exposures at different focus points. Big deal. I think the best they can hope for is that somebody buys their IP and they can break even on the clearance sale.

They compare it to Polaroid. I'm afraid not. Polaroid was a high quality mainstay in the beginning. Only later did they cheapen the process and release junky cameras. Lytro is starting off with junk, and they don't even have a niche to fill. Maybe they can compare to Holgas or Dianas.

HowaboutRAW: I'm with robogobo (above) who says "No matter what research is pointed my way...<snip>"

Real photographers & film makers don't care about your prism technology. It's a gadget. Why am I bringing-up DSLR technology that has matured 20 years? Because it's the current market leader and the reason we fork-out thousands to the likes-of Canon and Nikon. You think we can't get a shot infocus at f22 and a high ISO setting on these things? It's you that are showing ignorance. Watch this recent video by Canon Europe on the new 5DmkIII and then tell me that "post processing" the blur actually makes ANY sense? http://vimeo.com/37804617

I mean please, do you really think that the DP wished that he could do the BOKEH AFTERWARDS on every frame that needed it with a bank of servers to chomp on those bits like a 3D rendering? That's ridiculous! Do you think he or she had any problems getting the focus right? You're clearly not a DP just sounding more like a hired PR person or an employee.

robogobo: I said it from the beginning: this is at best a solution in search of a problem, and at worst a complex gimmick. No matter what research is pointed my way, I still don't see what's so revolutionary about the tech. I've been told I need a phd to understand it. Good luck selling that. In the end it still looks like a bunch of simultaneous exposures at different focus points. Big deal. I think the best they can hope for is that somebody buys their IP and they can break even on the clearance sale.

They compare it to Polaroid. I'm afraid not. Polaroid was a high quality mainstay in the beginning. Only later did they cheapen the process and release junky cameras. Lytro is starting off with junk, and they don't even have a niche to fill. Maybe they can compare to Holgas or Dianas.

@HowaboutRAW - You said "An obvious application, with much better video gear, would be to shoot a whole movie and not worry about focus while shooting--ever."....Really?...OK so clearly you (or your PR people) know nothing about film making because no DP would ever want that. Ever! First you guys need to learn about why we like our 7D's and 50D mkII's and why we've replaced our video cameras. Remember, find a need, fill a need. That's biz 101.

So beware technology hypers', you just go ahead and tout all you want about the futuristic line like.... "just imagine digital photography 20 years ago, blah blah..."....but here, the fundamentals are different. This is a giant lens projecting on to a VERY small sensor as far as I can see, (if you know more please tell me, I'd like to know) but this to me seems like shooting f128 all the time, so OF COURSE everything is in focus. Now, if you took 500 lbs of glass and shot it at a 12MP, I'm sure you could get everything in focus too on that sensor as well. But I'm only interested in shooting at f 2.0 at 12fps so you won't get my dollars. Otherwise, enjoy! :))

@kdaphoto: look, I'm not threatened by this technology. I'm threatened by people who propagate solutions to problems that don't exist and I feel that investors should put their money into something that will really make a difference in the world. If this technology works in some niche markets, I'm very happy for you. But to tell me that it replaces optical-based bokeh in creative photography and I'll be firm with my opinion about how I feel about that. I'll say it's garbage and not because I'm threatened, because I think it's ugly and IMO useless because I like my shots in... and out of focus. :)

So beware technology hypers', you just go ahead and tout all you want about the futuristic line like.... "just imagine digital photography 20 years ago, blah blah..."....but here, the fundamentals are different. This is a giant lens projecting on to a VERY small sensor as far as I can see, (if you know more please tell me, I'd like to know) but this to me seems like shooting f128 all the time, so OF COURSE everything is in focus. Now, if you took 500 lbs of glass and shot it at a 12MP, I'm sure you could get everything in focus too on that sensor as well. But I'm only interested in shooting at f 2.0 at 12fps so you won't get my dollars. Otherwise, enjoy! :))

@HowaboutRAW: f2.0 relative to what sensor size?...do I really neglect the facts?...perhaps not as much as you tout the fact that an "after-the-fact" Gaussian blur will dramatically change photography as we know-it. IMO, this "blur" looks like garbage and the number of prisms you have to me don't matter for hand-held photography because one can achieve that "in-focus" effect without them. but then again what for?...an all in-focus shot that even a decent POS can take now with enough light?

Let's just say we take a HUGE lens and mount a tiny sensor behind it which is SO small that EVERYTHING is in focus. Now, let's call-it a "technology" and sell shares to gullible investors that think this will evolve.

Then sell a few and give away more and get the consumer to log-in and choose a "focus point". Then use some generic Gaussian blur algorithm to blur the rest of the photo in a way that only a fool who's a totally inexperienced photog thinks that it's bokeh (when it's really) NOT. From what I see, this looks and feels NOTHING like true OPTICAL bokeh and I don't see that there is a way that it could ever simulate true lens bokeh.

....(con't)

@HowAboutRAW - Although my sarcasm is perhaps not nearly as ignorant of a statement than Lytro's CEO who said that "Regular photographs just don't tell the whole story." So please, spare me the drama. Then the PC mag article(linked below) give us a terrible photo with models blurred in-behind the main model. That to me is simply a crappy photograph in my opinion, (but then again, I guess you'll say it's subjective and you'd be right?). So I'm just stating that I still don't think people will buy this PR stunt, prisms or magic potions. I'll gladly keep the traditional bokeh from a chunk of glass moving glass closer to the sensor thank you very much. Now if you can come-up with an algorithm that will truly simulate that, I'd be impressed, but till then, I'm sure more PR people will come-by and "nay-say" negative posts like mine and these PR people will try to confuse people in this spin zone. To that I say enjoy the spin zone! ;)

So beware technology hypers', you just go ahead and tout all you want about the futuristic line like.... "just imagine digital photography 20 years ago, blah blah..."....but here, the fundamentals are different. This is a giant lens projecting on to a VERY small sensor as far as I can see, (if you know more please tell me, I'd like to know) but this to me seems like shooting f128 all the time, so OF COURSE everything is in focus. Now, if you took 500 lbs of glass and shot it at a 12MP, I'm sure you could get everything in focus too on that sensor as well. But I'm only interested in shooting at f 2.0 at 12fps so you won't get my dollars. Otherwise, enjoy! :))

Let's just say we take a HUGE lens and mount a tiny sensor behind it which is SO small that EVERYTHING is in focus. Now, let's call-it a "technology" and sell shares to gullible investors that think this will evolve.

Then sell a few and give away more and get the consumer to log-in and choose a "focus point". Then use some generic Gaussian blur algorithm to blur the rest of the photo in a way that only a fool who's a totally inexperienced photog thinks that it's bokeh (when it's really) NOT. From what I see, this looks and feels NOTHING like true OPTICAL bokeh and I don't see that there is a way that it could ever simulate true lens bokeh.